Rand Paul hits back at Christie, King: “If they want to make me the target, they will get it back in spades”

posted at 8:51 am on July 29, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

The volleying continues. This definitely isn’t the first time that Sen. Paul has hit Gov. Christie for some of his more blueish tendencies in the slow-moving but snowballing 2016 intra-party shakeout, but after Christie’s (ill-advised?) tear last week — “this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought” — you knew Paul wasn’t going to let that one go without returning some words. Via the AP:

Paul told reporters after speaking at a fundraiser outside Nashville on Sunday that Christie’s position hurts GOP chances in national elections, and that spending priorities of critics like the governor and Rep. Peter King of New York do more to harm national security.

“They’re precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending, and their `Gimme, gimme, gimme — give me all my Sandy money now.’” Paul said, referring to federal funding after the hurricane last year. “Those are the people who are bankrupting the government and not letting enough money be left over for national defense.” …

Paul on Sunday rejected arguments that the National Security Agency’s collection of hundreds of millions of U.S. phone and Internet records is necessary to prevent terrorism.

“I don’t mind spying on terrorists,” he said. “I just don’t like spying on all Americans.” …

“I didn’t start this one, and I don’t plan on starting things by criticizing other Republicans,” he said. “But if they want to make me the target, they will get it back in spades.”

Translation: I’m not trying get nasty on the libertarian versus neoconservative foreign-policy discussion, but if anyone wants to start this fight by invoking me personally the center of their attacks, then I’ll sure as heck finish it.

And indeed, it does feel like the GOP’s getting ready to duke it out over foreign policy in the run-up to 2016; asked about the House vote to restrict the NSA’s authority last week, Christie mentioned that he thinks “it’s not a debate not worth having” — but evidently, plenty of lawmakers think that it is a debate worth having, and as Paul said in regards to some of the GOP’s electoral issues, “If you talk about some privacy issues like that, I think you will find youth coming to you.” Yeah, this debate is definitely happening.

I suspect Scott Walker, Rick Perry, and Christie will be high up in the batting order when the final teams are selected, although Perry may be influenced by Cruz’s direction. Walker should know this is his time, if he wants to take the jump, but, he needs to get moving. His position on amnesty won’t hurt him that much, imo. It is going to happen, regardless of what the candidates say.

Huckabee supporters are as dumb as they come, sadly. We can thank them for Akin.

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 9:20 AM

Open primaries and cross over Dems (Dems spent $1.5 million to help him win the primary), multiple Tea party candidates that split the Tea party vote, Akin’s hubris that he could weather the storm, and big shot Republicans that iced him out gave us Akin.

Reagan came to national prominence as a political figure by delivering a televised speech in support of Goldwater just before the 1964 election. He was certainly a Goldwater Republican. The speech was so popular with conservatives, it resulted in Reagan’s election as governor of California.

When has a libertarian ever succeeded in a national campaign? If there is such a hunger out there for a libertarian, why hasn’t a libertarian pres candidate ever made much impact?

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Because most people don’t want to throw their vote away on a 3rd-party Presidential candidate. But as many people come to the opinion that a vote for a squishy Republican is throwing away their vote, they may go 3rd party just to find something they can stomach.

He’s not a libertarian, he’s a Republican. That’s why I said “coalition.” And that’s why they’re called politicians — the good ones know how to meld differences and transcend labels.

In 1960, people said a “Catholic” couldn’t win. But JFK didn’t run as a “Catholic.” In 1980 they said a conservative couldn’t win. But Reagan didn’t run as “a conservative” — his sensible and basically principled appeal crossed all political lines.

You’re also framing your argument in the past. The libertarianist mindset is growing, especially among the young. RINOism on the other hand is not a growth industry.

None of the above. This internal squabbling isn’t addressing the massive loss/offshoring of high paying manufacturing/industrial/et al jobs in the US. Don’t any of these guys read the headlines? 4 out of 5 adults at the poverty level? These politicians had better wake up.